Sound bites, political speak, media spin, tabloid sensationalism, propaganda and misinformation are the media's language. How do you see through the lies and discover the truth? Be discerning; critically analyse what you are being told. The media does not have a responsibility to report the news honestly; profit is the purpose of the media corporation. They answer to their shareholders. News and advertising is their product. The viewing public are their consumer. No Conspiracy theories here.
For almost three years, the Sea Eagles have been passively lobbying government officials for the funds needed to upgrade Brookvale Oval. As merely a hirer of this council owned and operated ground, we have chosen to fight and lobby to improve a community asset.
Half way through this current election however, it became blatantly obvious that whilst moral support would continue, neither the Liberal Government or the Labour Opposition would have the intestinal fortitude to offer the ground the money it needed to remain a practical option for an NRL team.
We needed to create a stir and it needed to be a headline grabbing stir. I think it would be fair to say - objective achieved.
Let me state this for the record – the clubs number one priority is to stay at Brookvale Oval. Our last and least preferred option is to relocate. The $8 million carrot on offer has been on the table for five years and will stay there until the NRL decide otherwise.
Again, a relocation of this proud club whether it be to the SFS, Nth Sydney Oval, Telstra Stadium or the Central Coast is the last option we would consider. Anybody who honestly believes the Board and Management of this club would walk away from our history without putting up the mightiest of fights, please note that the pigs are fueled and ready to fly.
I have read with amazement that people believe that Brookie is more than adequate for a first grade NRL team. I appreciate the emotional attachment but please, lets not be blinded by memories of yesteryear. The ground has a number of qualities we would retain in a redevelopment, but if you truly believe that you are being serviced professionally when you enter Brookvale Oval, you are in the minority. It needs work and needs to comply with the most basic OH & S laws.
The other issue I need to address is the attitude that the Club should simply make more money or should force the private owners to invest. Simply, the ground is zoned non commercial and therefore cannot be developed privately. If we fail to generate government funds, lobbying the Council to rezone is the next step. This will take months.
Revenue raising – how great it would be to simply knock on doors on the peninsula and be handed bags of money. Sponsorship is a tough game and becoming tougher. The poor state of Brookvale Oval does not help. Over the next month we will be announcing a new sleeve sponsor for the Club. A three year deal will multi national brand. A coup and great fit. That said, they initially didn’t want corporate hospitality as they believed the facilities at Brookvale Oval weren’t of an acceptable standard. A harsh reality. They love the club but needed re-assurance about the venue.
For all those people that want to give me an absolute earful and tell me that the Oval is fine in its current condition, I will be Brookie on Wednesday the 21st of November at 7pm fighting to keep this club where it belongs. I hope you can join me even if it is to give me a piece of your mind.
Regards
Grant Mayer CEO Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles
If you would like to join in our Q&A for Season Ticket Holders and Members please click here
With uncertainty surrounding a Government commitment of funding for Brookvale Oval, news surfaced today that the NRL has offered the club an 8 million dollar incentive to permanently move to the Central Coast.
CEO Grant Mayer today confirmed,
“There is an attractive financial commitment for any club to permanently move to the Central Coast. This option is our last option. The owners, board and entire management team want to remain at Brookvale long term, but the reality is Brookvale Oval cannot support the needs of the club or the community in its current state.”
Brookvale Oval no longer complies with occupational health and safety requirements, nor does it adequately cater for disabled patrons. Due to the lack of undercover seating and corporate facilities it also leaves the club in a position where they cannot attract enough backing to compete in the NRL and it leaves us with little alternative but to investigate partial or total relocation. As a community asset owned by Warringah Council, Brookvale Oval cannot even attract private investment due to zoning restrictions.
“Brookvale is the priority for both the Delmege and Penn families. We want Manly to be in the NRL, we want Manly to be competitive in the NRL, we want Manly to win the NRL but for too many years now other NRL clubs have received millions in Government funding while Brookvale Oval crumbles before our very eyes,” Chairman and owner Scott Penn explained.
Leichhardt Oval - $11 million in campaign promises for only 3 games per year! The Sea Eagles pay in excess of $400,000 for the use of a substandard facility. Whilst other clubs train and play for free on venues like the SFS and Telstra Stadium.
We are the best team in NSW with the worst facilities and the least funding. Brookvale Oval is rapidly becoming a black eye on the Peninsula.
We’ve had enough! We now call on our fans to support us and rally to keep this proud club where it belongs.
Bring your Family and Friends – dress in Manly colours and bring signs of support for your club.
The Coach, Players, Owners and Directors of the Sea Eagles will address the crowd and we need all Manly fans and Rugby League fans in general to attend. We had 3,000 people at our fan day last year we are asking for an even bigger turnout on Wednesday night.
We have 10 days to make our mark before the election.
Its time for Manly fans to show their hands, its time for Manly fans to show our Government representatives that the Northern Beaches Community deserves a fair go!
Display this poster in your shop window or work place. Download the A3 PDF and post it in a highly visible location.
The time is right - we need Government support now!
8/11/2007
By Manly Sea Eagles
We have it from a reliable source inside the Liberal Party that Brookvale Oval will not be receiving funding from the Federal Government. Tony Abbot has been a lone voice of support for Brookvale funding and has obviously been let down by others in his party. Fax Tony Abbot and lobby for a fair go for Brookvale funding. 02 9977 8715
We need everyone to get behind the club and contact their local member.
Government funding of over $900 Million has been spent on NRL venues over the last 10 years. $58 Million dollars has been spent or promised to part time grounds!
Brookvale Oval - home of the 2007 NRL Premiership Runners Up - has only received $1.44 Million
Its time to act! Lobby friends, lobby the Government - Don’t let Manly be left out.
Two eminent scientists are sounding dire warnings about the intensity and speed of climate change.
A former head of the CSIRO's atmospheric research unit is warning that it will only be a couple of years before we will see stark evidence of global warming.
And Australia's former chief scientist says governments around the world will need to use every option available to slow the warming of the planet.
These scientists have voiced their concerns just days before the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due to release the last of its four reports.
Their warnings also come towards the end of a federal election campaign in which climate change is a major issue.
Both major parties have pitched big policies and there is a proliferation of minor parties and independent candidates boasting platforms aimed at turning the tide of global warming.
But a new report from the Climate Institute - written by Graeme Pearman, a former head of the CSIRO's atmospheric research unit - is warning that the science underpinning the policies may already be out of date.
Globe warming faster than forecast
The research has found pollution and temperature levels are rising faster and Arctic ice is melting quicker than in the worst-case scenarios forecast by the United Nations last year.
Climate Institute chief executive John Connor says the research shows the acceleration of climate change means temperatures will rise by three degrees by the end of this century.
"You'll see increased droughts, wildfires threatening our capital cities," he said.
"It will also put at risk the Greenland ice sheets and some of the Antarctic ice sheets, which are the real biggies in terms of sea level rises if they slip into the oceans."
Urgent action needed
Mr Connor says there is no time to waste when it comes to addressing climate change.
"It means we're running out of time to help stop dangerous climate change and our politicians need to be much more urgent and decisive in the actions that they're taking in cutting greenhouse pollution, making the switch to green energy and showing real international leadership on this," he said.
Mr Connor says it is not that the IPCC got its sums wrong, just that there is more accurate evidence available now.
"It's clear that we're increasing our pollution and the impacts of that increased pollution are worse than had been thought," he said.
The report's author, Dr Pearman, addressed a conference of the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) in Sydney.
He says Australians will be able to see stark evidence of climate change within years.
Dr Pearman is warning that governments are failing to understand the level of urgency required to stem the tide of climate change.
But he may not get a very warm welcome at the conference. CEDA released its own report on climate change yesterday, in which it recommended governments avoid imposing short-term targets for emission cuts on industry because of the high costs to the economy.
However, another eminent scientist says the cost of climate change abatement measures need not be catastrophic to the economy.
New technologies
Professor Robin Batterham is a former chief scientist of Australia who now works for mining company Rio Tinto.
This morning he told a group of engineering students in Sydney that the world will need to use every option available to tackle climate change, from energy efficiency measures to renewable energy, nuclear power and carbon capture technology.
"I look at this and say the track record leaves us some challenges, and I've outlined some of them: the degree of difficulty, the time that it takes and so on," he said.
Professor Batterham argues that Australia needs to look at creative ways to get new technologies to market quicker.
He would like to see corporations fund climate initiatives, with public money used to supplement the projects. And he says these types of public-private partnership models would be a world first.
"For the public-private partnerships that I envisage here, I don't think as yet there are models around that are particularly looking at very major technology in that major commercial first demonstrations," he said.
"There is some excellent examples in the large-scale demonstration, but they all - necessary as they are and worthwhile as they are - are in that earlier stage.
"This major stage of when you're getting the cost curve down by learning by doing at the full commercial scale, that really hasn't been explored."
The IPCC will release the last of four reports by the world's leading scientists and policy-makers on the effect of climate change in Spain on Saturday.
It is expected to sound similar warnings about the need to take drastic action within the next five to 10 years to slow the acceleration of global warming.
But the Climate Institute's latest report suggests the UN's data will be out of date even before it is released.
Climate change caused by humans has reached a point where all governments must make hard choices to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions even as they prepare to deal with an inevitable global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will deliver this message as the IPCC -- a UN body that shared this year's Nobel Peace Prize -- releases Saturday the synthesis of its fourth assessment report at Valencia, Spain.
The report provides the reasons for climate change, its effects and possible ways to tackle it. The report says that global warming is likely to affect the health of millions, particularly those with low capacity to adapt.
This would lead to increased malnutrition; deaths, disease and injury due to heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts; diarrhoeal diseases; cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone; and increased range of vectors such as the mosquito carrying malaria and dengue.
From 1900 to 2005, rainfall has come down significantly in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of South Asia while increasing in parts of North and South America as well as parts of Europe and Central Asia.
The IPCC predicts that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy rainfall events will become more frequent. It is likely that future tropical storms will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more rainfall due to rise in tropical sea surface temperatures.
By the middle of the 21st century, annual average river runoff and water availability are projected to decrease by 10-30 percent over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and in the dry tropics, and to increase by 10-40 percent at high latitudes and in some wet tropical areas.
Water supplies from glaciers and melting snow cover are projected to decline, reducing water availability in regions supplied by melt water from major mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, home to more than one-sixth of the world population.
Approximately 20-30 percent of plant and animal species assessed are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5 degrees Celsius.
At lower latitudes, especially seasonally dry and tropical regions, crop productivity is projected to decrease. This would increase the risk of hunger.
Many millions are projected to be flooded every year due to sea level rise by the 2080s. The densely populated and low-lying areas where peoples' capacity to adapt is relatively low and which already face other challenges such as tropical storms or local coastal subsidence are especially at risk.
The numbers affected will be largest in the mega-deltas of Asia and Africa while small islands are especially vulnerable.
The report says that for the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade is projected for a range of emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been constant at 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1 degrees per decade would be expected.
Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system in the 21st century.
The best estimate of global warming by 2100 for the low emission scenario is 1.8 degrees Celsius (likely range 1.1-2.9), and for the high emission scenario four degrees Celsius (likely range 2.4-6.4).
The report says even the most stringent mitigation efforts cannot avoid further impacts of climate change in the next few decades, which makes adaptation essential. Unmitigated climate change would in the long term be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.
The IPCC suggests a mix of strategies that include mitigation and adaptation. It recommends that governments combine regulations with incentive-based approaches to cap GHG emissions.
If both parties keep their promises, the affordability crisis for first-home buyers will worsen, writes Steve Keen.
BOTH Liberal and Labor housing policies will make Australia's debt and housing affordability crises worse. The only difference between the two is how much damage they will do.
Both parties have promised tax-advantaged savings systems that will enable first-home buyers to accumulate larger deposits. This will help them compete with other buyers in the housing market, but the problem isn't a lack of competition among buyers. The real problem is that we've driven house prices far too high by devoting far too much borrowed money to buying houses. By increasing deposits while doing nothing about loans, both parties will only add fuel to the fire.
The ALP gives the example of a two-income family, earning average wages, who could increase their deposit by $18,000 as a result of its scheme (and the Liberals' scheme is much the same). That looks good on paper. But without any change to lending policies, that larger deposit will simply be used to secure a larger loan — up to $360,000 larger, if Mr and Ms First Home Buyer try to buy a house with a 5 per cent deposit.
Of course, no lender would offer such a loan — because even with an 8 per cent home loan rate, interest payments would consume 140 per cent of their gross income. But they could easily be offered an interest-only loan equivalent to 85 per cent of the purchase price, with repayments of 47 per cent of their income.
And what would that do to home affordability? Make it worse, of course. A fair slab of their increased purchasing power would be eaten up by yet higher prices, driven by ever higher household debt.
The Liberals' scheme is even worse, because it adds three more logs to the house-price fire — it allows relatives to contribute up to $1000 a year to the savings account, it lets relatives take an equity stake in the first-home buyer's house, without being liable for capital gains tax on its sale, and it promises to use future government surpluses to top up these savings accounts.
We have already achieved the world's most unaffordable housing with loans that are based solely on the incomes of the borrowers. This proposal would throw parents' income and government savings into the mix, and therefore push mortgage debt beyond its already astronomical level. It's a silly step towards the madness that marked the peak of Japan's ill-fated "bubble economy" in 1990, when lenders briefly offered 99-year mortgages.
We thus face a choice between a bad housing policy and an almost insane one. I hope that neither represents what either party really thinks is needed, but is instead a product of this "me too" election campaign, where each side is afraid of suggesting a policy that can be "wedged" by its opponent.
With the parties offering us a Hobson's Choice on housing in this election, the best we can hope for is that whoever wins ditches their campaign promise and instead develops a policy that restores some parity between mortgage debt and income — perhaps by limiting loans to some sensible multiple of the rental income a house can be expected to generate.
Steve Keen is associate professor at the school of economics and finance, University of Western Sydney.
DANA ROBERTSON: You're probably familiar with the names Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon, both victims of immigration scandals involving illegal detention or deportation. Tonight another such case has come to light.
It 's difficult to imagine the nightmare endured by Tony Tran.
A young husband and father, he was wrongfully locked-up for five and a half years; he was separated from his wife, who went back overseas and now can't be found; he lost his home and his livelihood and his Australian-born son was put into foster care while an attempt was made to deport the boy without his father's knowledge.
You may think, well, it can't get worse than that.
But while in detention Tony Tran was stabbed and bashed by another inmate and now suffers a range of chronic health problems.
Despite all this the Government has never apologised. Indeed, Tony Tran and his son still face possible deportation, although they're stateless with no citizenship rights anywhere else in the world.
So tonight we ask: why is his case - and that of his nine-year-old son - being allowed to drag on? Questions neither side of politics appear anxious to comment on in an election campaign.
Tony Tran told his story exclusively to Lateline's Margot O'Neill.
MARGOT O'NEILL: Tony Tran will never forget the day his life was taken away by the Federal Government. Having lived in Australia for seven years, Tony Tran had married a South Korean woman, had an Australian-born toddler, a mortgage, a tax file number and big plans for his family's future in Brisbane. But 18 months about inquiring about a spouse visa for his wife, Tony Tran found himself handcuffed and taken to jail. It was December 1999 he would never see his wife again.
TONY TRAN: I didn't expect to get locked up like that, so I never get to say goodbye or never get to kiss my son.
MARGOT O'NEILL: Have you ever seen your wife again since that morning?
TONY TRAN: No.
MARGOT O'NEILL: That was the last time you saw your wife, that morning?
TONY TRAN: Yes.
MARGOT O'NEILL: Tony Tran, who was born in Vietnam but had grown up in the United States as a refugee was told he was an illegal resident in Australia. He believed he'd had a valid visa, but immigration officials told him it had been cancelled years before. The problem is that Tony Tran had never been properly notified. The letter from Immigration had been returned unopened to the Department, and a person must be properly notified before any action can be taken against them.
DAVID MANNE, DIRECTOR, REFUGEE & IMMIGRATION LEGAL CENTRE: He should never have been in there in the first place. He should never have been locked up. Under Australian law, if you're not properly notified of a decision, it is unlawful for you to be detained.
MARGOT O'NEILL: But worst was to come. Tony Tran's wife and child are also facing detention, so she agrees to go back to South Korea, taking their then two-year-old son with her.
Immigration officials help prepare the paperwork and their son is given a South Korean passport, but not in his legally registered name Tran, the same as his father. Instead his name is altered to a Korean name to facilitate his entry into South Korea.
This is all done without Tony Tran's knowledge or consent. He found out he'd lost his family from an immigration official after they'd already gone to South Korea.
TONY TRAN: When they taken my child, that's when everything just collapsed for me mentally and physically. I thought I lost them. I thought I'd never see him again. Because I don't even know how my life is going to end.
MARGOT O'NEILL: How did you cope with that feeling?
TONY TRAN: You just... You just can't really cope with it, actually. It's mainly medication. I was on medication the whole time I was there.
MARGOT O'NEILL: Two years later, Tony Tran's wife returns briefly to Queensland where she abandons Hai, who's now four. She says she can't cope as a single mother. She then disappears back in South Korea.
State child welfare officials write to the Immigration Department saying it would be best if Tony Tran could care for his son in the community. Immigration refuses. Ultimately, Hai ends up in foster care against Tony Tran's wishes.
Transferred between four different detention centres in four states, Mr Tran claims the Immigration Department prevents him from attending the Children's Court hearings.
TONY TRAN: So they said that, well, if you want to attend the court, you have to organise it yourself. Now if you are in detention centre with fences around you, how are you going to organise something like that?
MARGOT O'NEILL: Powerless from inside immigration prison, Tony Tran yearns to see his son but doesn't want Hai to see his desperate plight. Immigration officials refused to allow them to meet outside detention, so father and son hang onto each other through weekly telephone calls.
(To Tony Tran) And so you never told him that you were in detention, you wanted to protect him?
TONY TRAN: Yes.
MARGOT O'NEILL: What did you tell him?
TONY TRAN: I told him that just to study hard, and that we have a long line of brainy people in our family, and that you have to study hard because they are working very hard to pay for his school fees and I was working far away, and that I'll be back one day. That's all I can say.
MARGOT O'NEILL: How did he go?
TONY TRAN: The thought of my son saying, like, "Dad, when can I see you? When can I touch you?" Because he all he have is picture of me, and that was it.
MARGOT O'NEILL: Tony Tran wants to send his son a new photo taken inside Baxter detention centre. But it takes months of paperwork and finally, officials refuse to process it, he says, until one days when he threatens to jump off a roof.
TONY TRAN: I get to the point where I have to climb on the roof at Baxter and threaten to jump if they don't process my picture so I can send to my son. Within like an hour or so, they processed it.
MARGOT O'NEILL: Despite Tony Tran's anguish at being separated from his son, immigration officials claim he doesn't care about the child when they contact migration agent Libby Hogarth about the case.
LIBBY HOGARTH, MIGRATION AGENT: Basically I was told that the father wasn't being very cooperative and really hadn't taken much interest in the child's welfare.
MARGOT O'NEILL: She's shocked when she finally talks to Tony Tran.
LIBBY HOGARTH: I talked to him about his son and it was very, very obvious to me that the major concern in his life was his young son who he hadn't seen for a number of years.
MARGOT O'NEILL: Meanwhile, immigration officials try to arrange to deport Hai back to Korea and leave the now five-year-old in the custody of Korean welfare, effectively as an orphan as this letter from Immigration shows.
EXCERPT OF LETTER (read by actor): My purpose in writing to you is to request that, as the child is a Korean national, the Korean Consulate arrange for the return of the child to Korea in coordination with the Health and Welfare Agency in Seoul.
DAVID MANNE: Even though he's in detention, he has rights. There is a duty of care owed to Tony at this time not to prevent him from effectively exercising the legal rights that he has under Australian law in relation to the care and custody of his son, Hai.
MARGOT O'NEILL: Who knows how long Tony Tran's saga might have dragged on. But the scandals about the illegal detention of Cornelia Rau and deportation of Australian citizen Vivian Alvarez Solon prompt a thorough review of all detention cases. And then, on the 7 June 2005, with no warning, Tony Tran is set free.
He can't remember much about that first week expect that he finally reunites with the son he'd put to sleep every night as a baby, but hadn't seen in more than five years.
TONY TRAN: It's nice to have him in my arms again. Because as a parent all you do is protect your children and that I finally get to protect him and cuddle him and put him back to sleep again.
MARGOT O'NEILL: At first Hai has nightmares, afraid that his father will leave him again.
TONY TRAN: That's very heartbreaking actually. Even when I got him back, every night he will have nightmare. Even when he's asleep, his hand will twirl around just to feel if I was there and he'll wake up and pinch my skin whether to see it's real or not. And then after that he'll go back to sleep again. Everyday I told him that I will always be here.
MARGOT O'NEILL: After five and a half years of wrongful detention and agonising separation from his child, Tony Tran is released with a letter from the Government admitting that he'd actually had valid visas since 1993.
So Tony Tran had been legal all the time. But two years after his release, there's no resolution of his or his son's ability to stay in Australia. No compensation, no apology. And even though he has no rights of citizenship anywhere else and has now been in Australia for 14 years, Tony Tran and his son could still be deported unless they're given permanent residence.
DAVID MANNE: Their future fate is completely uncertain. They have nowhere else to go, and yet in Australia they have no permanent status.
MARGOT O'NEILL: This ongoing instability makes it more difficult for 35-year-old Tony Tran to recover his health, which dramatically deteriorated during his years of incarceration. He was savagely bashed and stabbed by an unstable inmate.
TONY TRAN: The policeman have said that they have found like a six-inch homemade nail on a handle, so he stabbed me with it and he smashed me between my eyes.
MARGOT O'NEILL: A private ombudsman's report seen by Lateline concluded in July this year that part or all of Tony Tran's detention may have been unlawful, and recommends the Government investigate a remedy for Mr Tran.
But for nearly a year, lawyers have tried to sit down with the Government to negotiate compensation to no effect. They have now filed a suit in the Victorian Supreme Court which could result in one of the biggest immigration payouts in history. Another damages suit for Tony's son, Hai, will follow.
DAVID SHAW, PARTNER, HOLDING REDLICH LAW FIRM: I think this is a matter which is capable of being resolved relatively quickly with good will on both sides. We've been seeking to have negotiations with the Government since February this year. I'd love to see a situation where Tony and his son could have their status resolved by Christmas.
LIBBY HOGARTH: I just have the most amazing respect for Tony for the way that he's got on with his life since his release, the way he's managed his child and really worked so hard at giving that child some stability in life whilst still in such a limbo period, because he still doesn't have any decision on our request to the Minister to intervene in his case, that's been sitting before the Minister for nearly two years now, and so we're still waiting for some answer and some closure on this case.
MARGOT O'NEILL: Tony Tran now battles depression, asthma and a heart condition. He lives on charity in Melbourne while studying to get a degree in radiology.
TONY TRAN: When you ask me how do I feel, I don't really know what to feel. I just want to, most of the time, just want to be secluded, just want to be myself for now. For me my main focus is, like, my son. To hope that he can grow up and lead a normal life. For me, I'm trying as well. It's not easy but I'm trying as well.
MARGOT O'NEILL: Margot O'Neill, Lateline.
TONY JONES: Lateline sought interviews from both the Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, and his Labor counterpart, Tony Burke.
Mr Andrews' office returned our calls late tonight after being tied up today with campaign issues and they undertook to look at the case tomorrow.
Mr Burke was unable to join us tonight also because of campaign commitments.
TONY JONES: Tony Burke is the Opposition immigration spokesman. He joins us now in our Brisbane studio. Thanks for being there.
TONY BURKE, OPPOSITION IMMIGRATION SPOKESMAN: Good evening.
TONY JONES: Now, many of us were shocked by the wrongful detention of Cornelia Rau, perhaps even more so by the illegal detention and deportation of Vivian Solon. What do you think of this new case, the details of which we've just had on our program last night on Tony Tran?
TONY BURKE: Tony, I wish I could say I was surprised. Unfortunately, we've now seen more than 200 cases where somebody has spent part of their life inside immigration detention, only to find out at the end of that time that they were always lawfully in Australia. So, I wish I could still be surprised by it but we've had now more than 200 lives turned upside down by mistakes that have been made in this fashion.
TONY JONES: Let's consider for a moment what Tony Tran lost as a result of being wrongfully locked up for five and a half years. His family was torn apart, his wife and Australian-born son ended up in Korea, his son was then brought back to this country, but he wasn't able to see him for that whole five and a half years and extraordinarily, during that period when his son was here and he was in detention, the Immigration Department attempted to deport the boy back to effectively an orphanage in Korea. Now, this is an extraordinary set of circumstances. What do you think of the detail?
TONY BURKE: Well, some of these issues go to the cultural issues that developed within the Department of Immigration that we've spoken about before. Where the nature of the leadership that was given by successive ministers for that department drove a particular culture which resulted in a culture of assumption, a culture of denial - finally - a culture of cover-up, all of which has been reported in the Palmer and Comrie reports of a couple of years ago.
In terms of the rest of the detail, I have got to say, Tony, I can't give a final conclusion on all the aspects of this case, because unusually for an election campaign, I'm not in a position and I'm the only shadow minister in this situation where I'm not able to get the briefings directly from departmental officials that would ordinarily be made available to a shadow minister.
TONY JONES: Could you explain what you mean by that? I mean, you're talking talking about the caretaker provisions I would guess?
TONY BURKE: During the caretaker period, shadow ministers are ordinarily able to get direct access - without the minister's office there present taking notes - direct access to departmental officials. I wrote just before the election was called to Kevin Andrews, seeking a further one of these meetings. I'd had two, other shadow ministers have had a succession of meetings. I received on, what was it, I received it on the 17th of October, Kevin Andrews signed it on the 15th of October, a letter saying that for this one department, the Opposition would be shut out of having any further meetings.
TONY JONES: Do you know why he's taken this position? Have you obviously asked why?
TONY BURKE: Well, the - I think you can put it down to two reasons. We're either talking about a cover-up of further incompetence or we're talking about arrogance. I think either of them are probably plausible.
In terms of incompetence, the Government and this minister have form, whether it's the refugee swap, the handling of Dr Haneef's case, letting Yvonne Ridley into the country. There have been a succession of examples of incompetence.
In terms of arrogance it's once again public servants being viewed as though they're the property of the Liberal Party. I've no doubt Kevin Andrews gets access to them during the election campaign whenever he wants, but he's the one minister in the Government who's decided that the caretaker provisions won't be extended to the Opposition during the campaign period.
TONY JONES: What are the legal implications of this? Are the conventions simply that, conventions that have no legal weight and he can do this and legally do this?
TONY BURKE: The convention has always been that the shadow minister would write to the minister and seek meetings. The minister would then arrange the appropriate time.
I did write directly to the departmental secretary as well, who in his response to me referred to discussions with the department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and said, no, you have to go through the minister.
So I've no doubt the Prime Minister is aware of what Kevin Andrews has done, because PM and C were notified. But Kevin Andrews has decided to shut down on providing all the information to the Opposition.
Now as I say, it may be just straight arrogance, it may be further examples of incompetence that if anything like this arose during the campaign, they wanted to make sure that we weren't able to get direct access to the bureaucrats.
But what it ultimately means in a case like the one we're dealing with tonight, I can certainly look at the evidence that's been presented, see which evidence and certainly what was presented last night puts Mr Tran's case in a very strong light and I can talk about the issues that we would weigh up if we were ever presented with the file, if there is a change of government in the couple of weeks' time.
But in terms of being able to offer any sort of final conclusion, Kevin Andrews, through his use of or abuse of what everyone else regards as standard protocols during an election campaign, has shut us down.
TONY JONES: I'll come to what you would do if you had the complete file in government in a moment. First, you've made your case for access directly, have you, to Andrew Metcalfe?
TONY BURKE: That's right. Kevin Andrews - initially when I wrote - didn't reply in what I regarded as a reasonable time. Previously we'd always had a turnover of a day or so. So I wrote directly to Andrew Metcalfe and I understand why his hands are tied but he contacted PM and C and then wrote back to me saying the advice from PM and C was that I had to continue to go directly through the minister.
So as I say, I appreciate the position that the departmental secretary's in, but because he did notify PM and C I have no doubt that the Prime Minister would be aware of what Kevin Andrews is doing.
TONY JONES: Let's leave that aside for a moment. You know Tony Tran and his son have never received an apology. They're still in migration limbo, as we've called it. If you were to come to government, what would you do to resolve this case?
TONY BURKE: Well, the first thing is that the decision that says he was legally in Australia from everything that's been presented so far was something that the department has fully acknowledged. So I've always taken a view that if you are wrongfully detained, that's wrong. And an apology for having been wrongfully detained is not an unreasonable thing to go to.
But what would I do, I would look at the file and you adopt a number of principles in how you weigh that up, principles like no one should be stateless, the impact on children being involved.
You also have to weigh up character issues and you don't want to get hysterical about it, but it is true that part of the role of the Minister for Immigration is a national security role.
I've got no evidence presented that that's relevant in this case. But as I say, you weigh those issues up and essentially follow the guidelines that were brought down by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in a report that he brought out into 501 deportations a couple of years ago. Where he just gave a good summary of the range of issues that a minister would properly take into account when exercising discretions under that part of the Act, and depending on the precise visa that Mr Tran applies for at any point of time, you'd weigh up similar principles.
TONY JONES: Very briefly, would you say on the surface of it, he has a strong case for remaining in Australia and a strong case for compensation, be that fought through by the courts or an ex-gratia payment?
TONY BURKE: Well, certainly if you're wrongfully locked up, it's difficult to see that there wouldn't be a case for compensation that would flow from that. The exact quantum of that is a matter that gets sorted out through negotiation and ultimately if those negotiations break down, then through the courts.
In terms of permanence, the first principle you have to get through is if not in Australia, then where? It appears from what's been presented so far that Mr Tran in fact has nowhere else to go. And certainly, it would be unusual to seriously look at relocating somebody who has been found to be a refugee back in the country from which it had been independently found they were being persecuted.
So it appears that there are very few options available. That would have to weigh very heavily. But as I say, issues like national security issues, I've got no reason to believe that they're part of this case, but without being able to get access to the full file, then I can't get to the point of that final conclusion.
TONY JONES: What we've realised from talking to the Ombudsman tonight is that there are 200 other cases like this, or this is one of another 200 cases besides Rau and Solon. There were calls for a royal commission into why these cases happened in the past. If you come to government, will you have a royal commission to get to the bottom of this once and for all?
TONY BURKE: My first thing that I want to do is have a look at what can be brought out publicly. I want to get to those details. I've always thought that a royal commission was the way to deal with these issues. My criticism of it being handled solely by the Commonwealth Ombudsman was that the Commonwealth Ombudsman was not able to get to the bottom of when any of these problems had reached the minister's office.
Within his powers the Commonwealth Ombudsman has done a fantastic job, but I imagine as minister, I would be able to get access to the relevant files to be able to see whether or not a royal commission was the best way to deal with this or whether you'd look at full release of documents. Certainly I've always taken the view that if the Howard Government were to remain in place, which it has so far, then that would require the openness of an inquiry with all of the powers of a royal commission.
The extent to which the powers for public release of information would be in the hands of a minister is something that I'd be able to look at hopefully, if I hold that job, in a couple of weeks' time.
TONY JONES: Tony Burke we're out of time. We'll have to leave you there. We thank you very much for coming to join us tonight.
THE Federal Government faces another humiliating compensation payout that could run into millions of dollars as a result of court action taken by a Vietnamese-born man.
Tony Tran, 35, was unlawfully detained for more than five years and badly bashed in early 2005 at the Baxter Detention Centre by a mentally ill inmate with a history of violence, a statement of claim filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria says.
He was also separated from his son Hai and not told by the Government in 2000 that Hai, then two years old, would be taken by the boy's mother to South Korea, the country of her birth. Three years later the boy was left by his mother with Mr Tran's brother in Australia and later placed in foster care for 14 months after the brother could no longer care for Hai.
Mr Tran is seeking compensation from the Federal Government for physical and psychological damage.
If successful, any compensation was likely to run into millions of dollars, said litigation expert Anne Gooley, from Maurice Blackburn Cashman.
"How do you compensate somebody for detaining them unlawfully for five years?" she said.
Ms Gooley expects the case to be settled before it goes to a full hearing.
In a similar high profile case, the Government settled with Vivian Alvarez Solon, who was wrongfully deported to the Philippines, for a reported $4.5 million.
Lawyers acting for Mr Tran declined to comment on likely compensation, but they have said they are interested in settling the case before it reaches court, which is likely to be next year.
One of his lawyers, David Manne, from the Refugee & Immigration Legal Centre, said Mr Tran had shown "extraordinary strength and dignity" since his release in 2005 and in his attempts to rebuild his life.
He has not received an apology from the Federal Government and, with his son, still faces deportation. Father and son are now together in Melbourne.
Mr Tran was not available for interview yesterday — his lawyers say they are trying to protect him from the glare of publicity — but he agreed to be photographed by The Age.
He told the ABC's Lateline on Monday night that he never expected to be locked up in late 1999 and had not seen his wife since. "I never get to say goodbye or never get to kiss my son," he said. "When they taken my child, that's when everything just collapsed for me mentally and physically."
He said his son had nightmares even when they were reunited. "Even when he's asleep, his hand will twirl around just to feel if I was there and he'll wake up and pinch my skin to see if it's real or not."
Mr Tran was born in Vietnam but grew up in the United States as a refugee before arriving in Australia in the early 1990s.
He was detained in December 1999 after the Department of Immigration believed it had previously notified him that his bridging visa had been cancelled. But a letter sent to him in 1996 was returned to the department unopened and marked "not at this address" according to the statement of claim.
His lawyers say that despite this Mr Tran was a "lawful non-citizen" as during his detention he held a different type of bridging visa that allowed him to stay — a fact conceded by the department on his release.
Mr Tran is seeking compensation for facial fractures and brain contusions as well as dizziness, neck pain and wounds to the abdomen. He also suffered depression and anxiety from being separated from his son.
"He has suffered severe physical and psychological harm due to all of this," Mr Manne said.
A spokesman for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship referred inquiries to the office of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews. A spokeswoman for Mr Andrews did not return calls seeking comment on the case.
Labor's immigration spokesman Tony Burke said yesterday that he would need to look at Mr Tran's file if the ALP was elected. "Certainly, all the information that has been put forward so far counts in his favour and certainly it appears that he actually has no other country to go to," Mr Burke said.
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews has blocked opposition access to his department's bureaucrats in breach of caretaker provisions, Labor says.
Labor immigration spokesman Tony Burke accused Mr Andrews of shutting him out of briefings either to cover up incompetence or out of arrogance.
Mr Burke said he had been unable to obtain files about Vietnamese-born refugee Tony Tran, whose case of alleged wrongful attention for five and a half years came to light.
"I'm not able to get the briefings directly from the department that would ordinarily be made available to a shadow minister," Mr Burke told ABC TV.
The spokesman said he was the only Labor frontbencher to have received such treatment during the campaign.
An October 15 letter from Mr Andrews had confirmed that "for this one department the opposition would be shut out of having any further meetings", Mr Burke said.
"We're either talking about a cover-up of further incompetence or we're talking about arrogance.
"I think either of them are probably plausible."
Mr Burke said the immigration department head had informed him on the advice of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet that he had to seek information directly from Mr Andrews.
He accused the minister of abusing standard protocols.
